Skip to main content
9:00 pm
>> thank you for joining me "in the arena." piers morgan starts right now. tonight, a woman at the center of the case that transfixed america and the world. >> as the charge to first-degree murder, we, the jury, find the defendant not guilty. >> now she tells her side of the story, nancy grace. >> not guilty, the devil is dancing tonight. >> tonight, i'll turn the tables and cross-examine nancy on the casey anthony trial. also, the story captivating newsrooms on both sides of the click. the hacking scandal and what it means to rupert murdoch's empire. this is "piers morgan tonight." good evening. a little later, i'll speak with nancy grace, the woman that put the casey anthony trial on the map and became a lightning rod
9:01 pm
for her opinion on the woman she dubbed tot mom. first, the phone hacking scandal. i was editor of two major british tabloid newspapers. i was editor "nufz the world" from 1994 to 1995. and i was also editor from "daily mirror" from 1995 to 2004. for the record, i don't think any article we published was ever obtained through illegal means. b i readwrote a detailed book on experiences. i want to bring in jessica reef cohen, porter bibbing managing partner of medical tech capital partners and john coffey and kendall lesser, author of google, end of the world as we
9:02 pm
know it. this is a quiet, unprecedented, extraordinary situation. two of rupert murdoch's ceos resigns, two top police officers, gone, resigned. a whistleblower has been found dead. police have been stressing, they don't think it's suspicious. have you seen anything like quite like this? and as rupert murdoch prepares to address members of parliament in britain tomorrow, how serious is this moment for him and his company? >> it's dreadfully serious for rupert murdoch, his family and his company. the company itself i don't think is in jeopardy. it's the second or third largest media company in the world, but murdoch's aura of invincibility is gone. his lieutenants are apples falling from the tree. his argument it was a few rotten
9:03 pm
apples is discredited. it's really a barrel problem. he has to deal with that, and he knows in coming days, not just in his testimony tomorrow, but in coming days, there will be more apples that will be revealed to have been rotten. he has a lot to answer for. >> i can say from my experience, editing a newspaper for him and this was, five, six years before any of this phone hacking began, but certainly when i worked for him, he wanted his editors toagl of the things would you expect from a tabloid newspaper, but always to operate within the law. and i find it impossible, personally knowing the man, to think he would have known about law breaking on his newspapers, let alone condone it. >> it's not just a question of what you knew, but what you should have known. they were turning up the most unbelievable stuff from lady diana or others? how did his top people ask the question, how did you get this?
9:04 pm
you know as an editor if your reporter comes into you with a story and says i got this, i think it's a page one story. and oh, my god, it's a great story, it is a page one story. the first question, who were your sources? why weren't they asking those questions? >> i'm sure the editors would be asking the question. i don't know the man, and i think tomorrow when he gets in front of parliament, he'll probably argue, look, i'm in charge of a $32 billion corporation. i cannot be expected to mic micromanage the methodology of every part of his company. do you? >> no. but when he sees these salacious stories on page one, i expect him -- when i profiled murdoch at 95, i lived with him for ten days. he was calling editors every day. every newspaper from his around the world, 130 at the time, were
9:05 pm
lined up. he would leaf through many of those papers. i would expect he might have asked the question, how -- how are we getting all of this wonderful stuff? >> turn to porter bibb here. there's been lots of speculation and denial from the murdoches that the newspaper division may simply be sold off in britain. again, i find that hard to believe because of the deep-rooted love he has for those papers, and as former editor of "news of the world," i was pretty shocked after seeing the "news of the world" shot down. first newspaper he bought in britain and i think he huge respect and personal admiration for. did it become too hot? is the newspaper division for him now in britain simply not making enough money to make it worth saving in a crisis like this? >> he has got to address several constituencies. one is news corp investors, and print is a losing proposition, and news corp has not made a
9:06 pm
transition to the digital domain with any of their newspapers, starting with "the sunday times" of london. even "the wall street journal" is still margin allally profita venture, which he way overpaid by several million dollars. in the uk he is seenpy politicians and regulators by dominating the media with his heavy, de facto control interest in sky news and bskyb, and the major national dailies. so it's a matter of public record, piers, that eight weeks before this whole shakespearean drama hit the headlines, rupert and senior managers were meeting with advisers and financial managers to explore the possibility of selling the entire conglomeration of newspapers.
9:07 pm
that is probably going to be inevitable now, and who knows whether "the wall street journal" and "new york post" will be included. >> jessica reef cohen, your firm was involved with the purchase of bskyb. was your reading that murdoch was going to sell his newspaper division? >> we have no idea. we really don't know. but from an investor perspective, i think everybody would be thrilled if news corp spun out the newspaper division or sold it, but somehow separated it from the entertainment assets. >> let me ask you. obviously, the bskyb, a huge deal for news corporation. 9 billion, 10 billion pounds, $16 billion dollars. it looks like it's in serious
9:08 pm
jeopardy. it used to be a financial cash cow. when i was at news of the world it made $100 million profit at least. do you see a time coming as newspapers diminish in importance, when murdoch's corporation, news corporation, with or without the murdoches, views newspapers as disposable assets to let them focus on television and movies, which make more money? >> well, i mean, there's clearly an affinity for newspapers by murdoch. it's less than 10% of the total company. and uk properties are less than 10 cents of share of value. so they are really not that significant. all of the growth has been in newer media cable networks now over 50% of the company's operating income, and there is tremendous growth in satellite assets like star tv in india and
9:09 pm
sky tire, sky deutscheland, bskyb. it's still relatively underpenetrated, a growth engine and a free cash flow machine. >> the price of news corp crashing the past two weeks, is it now cheap? are the shares now undervalued, given the scale of this crisis? >> yes, news corp has lost over $8 billion of value since the crisis erupted in the last few weeks. and we can account with the decline in bskyb share price, and even just saying they give away the uk newspapers which obviously wouldn't happen. they could sell it or spin it, but that's maybe $2 billion of the whole decline. so $6 billion is more emotional, more worry about the unknowns, but i think at some point when we get through this, as long as u.s. assets aren't touched and pulled down with the scandal. uk-contained, then this is an
9:10 pm
amazing entry point to news corp stock. >> let me bring in professor coffey here. professor coffey, huge anger on both sides of the atlantic to the murdoches personally. he has been a talisman figure in the media a long time. you don't get to be the most dominant media delayer in the world without attracting a fair share of snipers. how much of that is justified? looking at him dispassionately? do you think he's primarily a force for good or not so good in the media? >> i think he's probably led a race to the bottom. the tabloid world has to respond to whoever is getting the most headlines and circulation. i really am only an expert on criminal liability. d i do not suggest that he faces a high level of criminal liability, unless it can be shown that he personally authorized either the payment of a bribe to a foreign governmental official, like a
9:11 pm
scotland yard office, or news corp hid bribes by falsifying books and records and that latter possibility is really the more likely one, because almost no company has disclosed they are paying bribes. somewhere in news corp there will be liability if you hid bribes that, were, in fact, paid. >> in terms of exposure to the american part of the company, am i right in thinking that if that is proven if there were bribes being paid, either anonymously or in fake names, whatever it may be, if it were paid by news international, a british company, does that still impact on the american part of the business? >> there are two distinctions here, if the bribes are paid by news international, i think it is unlikely that u.s. prosecutors would want to go after bribery to british governmental officials. i think they would still be interested in the books and records of news corp. news international is conso consolidated with news corp. and those records fail to
9:12 pm
disclosed there were bribes paid. and $8 million in stock value has disappeared over the last couple of weeks. there will be securities class actions that you never disclosed business practices and when they were disclosed, the value fell like a stone. >> reporting this scandal, and i don't think any journalist can possibly defend some of the stuff going on in terms of phone hacking missing girls who turn out to be murdered and so on, but in terms of longer-term benefit for journalism, you can see this could be a watershed moment that actually the perils of new technology and so on, in investigative journalism, dealt with in such a high-profile manner, and journalism itself may be better? do you worry conversely all of this attention on this means there may be further attacks on freedom of the press? >> i think you have to separate the questions. and it's a good question.
9:13 pm
one, there is no question it will make the press even less popular than we are today. in that sense, it's not good for journalism. we're all hit by the broad brush that we probably in many cases don't deserve, on the other hands, you can argue -- the press is a very insular institution, and not used to criticism mu criticism. and when it breaks out to the open this way and criticized, it tends to raise the consciousness of reporters and all journalists to say hey, wait a second, there but for the grace of god go i and i don't want to go there. maybe it forces us to re-think about what lines we'll draw and what is permissible in the world of journalism and that's a good thing if that happens. >> thank you, all, very much for your time. ken, jessica, porter, and john coffey. rupert murdoch will defend himself and his business in front of the world's television cameras to british members of
9:14 pm
parliament. it will be an extraordinary spectacle and we'll know more by the end of it. thank you, all, for your time. >> thank you. coming up, i want to bring in a woman know whos the murdoches very well personally and what it will mean for the family business and the family itself. just one phillips' colon health probiotic cap a day helps defends against occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas and bloating. with three strains of good bacteria to help balance your colon. you had me at "probiotic." [ female announcer ] phillips' colon health.
9:15 pm
9:16 pm
9:17 pm
we want to bring in a woman that knows the murdoches very well. she is a contributing editor although "vanity fair." thank you for joining me. obviously a hell of a mess for the murdoches. >> piers, i just got a call an hour ago, and ricco wanted to tell me personally, you know, he's not okay. ever since he met with millie dowler, the murdered girl's parents, he hasn't felt the same. his voice has been cracking, people around him are very concerned, his children are very concerned. this is a man who is more devastated than he has ever been
9:18 pm
in his entire 80 years, and you know, he is appalled at what's gone on on his watch, and his anxious to get to the bottom of it as we all are. >> as i said earlier during the panel, being one the editors, when we tripped up on by what on these standard are relatively minor indiscretions, he was always -- always incredibly quick to be publicly sensourous of me or whatever editor he was offending. i just cannot accept, although there is this huge witch hunt going on to bring him down personally, i don't accept that he himself would be party to a
9:19 pm
leg illegal activity. >> being features editor at "the new york post" and working for him at "the times" and the now defunct "today" newspaper, i completely agree with you, piers. he became a friend to me when i was at the "new york post," he would stop by my office and talk to me. he wanted to know what tomorrow's headlines were. he would not in any way want to interfere with a story. this is a man who cares so much about his legacy. he once said to me, all i want is for my kids to be decent people. and what i enjoy more than anything else in the morning is getting up and looking at all my newspapers and then looking at the competition and seeing who has done better. and, you know, it was like -- he would -- and i loved the sort of image of him in his pajamas. >> vicky, i wouldn't want this
9:20 pm
to become a kind of valedictory, perfect kind of segment. because, of course, he's not. he is a ruthless businessman who built this empire. he played hard and fast and aggressively to win. he's not the first guy who has done that that wants power and so on. i can only go on my experience. people always assume if you edit a paper for murdoch that he constantly interfered. that just did not happen. and i wrote a book of diaries, detailing my time there, and he just didn't do that. it wasn't his thing. what he would do is discuss them after you published them. but he assumed his line managers, editors, and so on, would have done all of the necessary checking to make sure these stories were publishable according to the law of the land and i think that's why this will hit him so hard. knowing the family, what do you think he will be coming over as tomorrow when he appears on mp?
9:21 pm
it's a very difficult situation. he's never had to do this before. how do you think he'll deal with this? >> the one thing about rupert is that -- yes, he can be ruthless, but actually we can just talk about this, he's ruthless, but also entrepreneurial. he built an empire, often at great personal risk. but tomorrow i expect to see a very, very sincerely con cite person. >> i need to wrap this up. and the problem is that the british press have always had a demonic reputation and unfortunately, this series of x expose's has merely reaffirmeded to people their worst fears. i think it's not as simple as that. >> i don't either. i agree with that. >> bad apples that have simply gone way too far. it's not indicative of my time on fleet street. most journalists be hayed. and most journalists in britain
9:22 pm
share a view that it's completely unacceptable. people may be being arrested here, but we saw one of the journalists arrested in june being cleared and no further action to be taken. i think we need to wait until we see who gets charged, what the evidence is. we see court cases and get to the bottom of this, rather than everybody jumping in with size nine boots and effectively convicting everybody. >> we have to wait. we just don't know. we don't know enough. >> vicky, i have to leave it there. thank you for your time. we will know a lot more when rupert murdoch meets the mps tomorrow it will be a dramatic time. > next, nancy grace speaks out on the case that gripped the nation. [ female announcer ] now at red lobster, a complete four-course seafood feast for $15. start with soup,
9:23 pm
then have salad and biscuits followed by 1 of 7 delicious entrees and finish with something sweet. all for just $15. you
9:24 pm
9:25 pm
9:26 pm
casey anthony is a free woman tonight, she walked out of a florida jail early yesterday morning, after a jury found her not guilty in the death of her 2-year-old daughter. no one is more outraged by that verdict than nancy grace. a new book is "death on the d list." nancy joins me now. you followed the story probably more closely than anybody else, and you were clearly outraged by
9:27 pm
the verdict. but you reiterated your faith in the american justice system. what do you think went wrong here? >> piers, number one, thank you for having me. i guess at this point, knowing that tot mom has walked free leaves more of a sense of extreme disappointment, a feeling of being let down. because those of us that have devoted i would say my entire adult life to public service, well, since the murder of my fiance back in 1979 to see a miscarriage of justice in a system we hold so dear, i mean, piers, the justice system is something that i've held onto and believed in since keith's murder many years ago, and to see it fail is deeply upsetting me. amidst claims she's fielding million-dollar offers and is considering plastic surgery and marriage proposals, it's very
9:28 pm
upsetting, piers. extremely upsetting. >> here is the thing, nancy, playing devil's advocate. i can feel the passions running high. >> of course, you will play devil's advocate. i know what that means. >> i mean, listen, have you an extraordinary run of success covering your trial. hln had fantastic ratings. >> whoa, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. i didn't make anything my own. this story is not my story. this story is caylee's story. and i remember the night that we first heard about the case. every day, every morning around 5:00 a.m., between 5:00 and 7:00 a.m., i get a list of about 70 to 80 cases, i start reading them along with my executive producer, dean, we go through those and many, many others. we go to every website, every news outlet to find the case we're looking for to cover that night. and when i heard the tot mom's story. i heard about caylee.
9:29 pm
i said that's it. that's the case we need to do tonight. that one. and my ep agreed. that was a long time ago. but it's not my case. this is caylee's case. and it is every parent in america's case. as a warning. >> i suppose the question from me to you as a legal brain is the inconsistency really between continuing to support the system if you feel that it failed so much. what would you do differently in light of this trial, given that you believe it's such a miscarriage of justice? >> piers, piers, piers, come on. you're super smart. here's the deal. it's like saying i believe in god because i don't want to go to church because i hate organized relinl gioreligion. what a line. the justice system is made up of people. people have faults. it's not perfect. when i tried cases in intercity atlanta for a decade, i went to
9:30 pm
every jury trial, knowing it was a crapshoot. knowing it all depended on the jury that i put in the box, the 12 i put in the box. and oh, that's old. but it was a scary thing for me, because i was always convinced that i could lose the case and there would be a miscarriage of justice. and there was one here. does that mean i don't believe in our justice system? no. to believe in our justice system and hold it dear, you accept it warts and all. >> i've made it very, very clear in my coverage of this, that i just don't know anybody who would not report a missing child for 31 days. that alone is appalling negligence and i don't really buy into the post traumatic thing. some experts believe this has been done before. i don't believe that. i'm totally with you. the appalling negligence, the
9:31 pm
fact she went partying, didn't report it, all of that stuff. here is where i have a slight issue, and it's about the system itself. the jurors have taken a lot of slack. some of them have been flighted away from their homes. >> you mean one of them. let's get the facts straight. there's only one juror. >> the point i had make this. 90% of all of the legal experts i've had on, when i have really pushed them, all of them said there was not enough hard evidence to link her to the murder of her child. lots of circumstantial evidence, and the beyond a reasonable doubt element is the one that is clearly the debatable point. none of them would blame the jurors for failing to be absolutely certain that she was directly and inexorablilinged to the murder of that child. why do you think that?
9:32 pm
>> one juror voluntarily quit her job and doesn't want to go home because she is afraid. afraid of what? no one has said a word to her, never had a threat. did she voluntarily leave her job, or is she going to do a tell-all book? i would inspect her motives. not a lot of jurors or several jurors that were hounded out of their homes. that's not true. number two i don't know who the legal experts you've had on are, but having tried over 100 cases and taken guilty pleas in thousands of cases, and argued before state supreme courts, i would be willing to suggest that your experts are wrong, because under our law, circumstantial evidence is deemed equal to direct evidence, such as an eyewitness. in many, many cases, piers, and you know this very well. in many cases, you don't have an eyewitness to a crime. murders, rapes, child
9:33 pm
molestations, they don't happen out on the street all the time. they happen behind closed doors. often there is not direct evidence of a crime. the state relies on circumstantial evidence, as they did in this case. now, you're telling me that they don't think there was enough hard evidence. and i assume you are referring to direct evidence. there was a mountain of evidence pointing to guilt in this case. and i knew, piers, and you can laugh into your fist if you want, but on day two of jury deliberations when the juror came in wearing a suit that morning, he knew they were going to announce a verdict. and what that says to me is that in less than say, eight hours, they had gone through weeks of testimony. they didn't even go through all of the testimony before they reached their verdict. and i think that that's wrong. >> i agree with you, that the amount of time they spent deliberating was completely unacceptable for a case of this
9:34 pm
complexity. and i would certainly criticize them for that. but i come back to the main legal point. you know, very eminent lawyers have said, if it were to them, they would convict, but they understood why the jury didn't feel there was enough to be completely certain. if i was on a jury, i would want to see from my fellow jurors, can you accept that? >> once again, under our american system of juris prudence, the law is you don't have to explain to a jury -- although i would like to explain to a jury exactly how a murder occurred, but should a defendant, such as tot mom casey anthony get a gold star or a benefit because we cannot determine cause of death? because she had the body hidden for so long it decomposed out in a swamp? and when i think of this child being thrown out in a swampy,
9:35 pm
makeshift pet cemetery, for her body to decompose, for an malls to pull her limbs apart and gnaw on her bones, why should tot mom get a benefit because the child was so decomposed? the law says she does not. and your question was dead on, pierce. a lot of people don't know how it happened. i don't know how it happened. i don't know, did she smother her, did she put tape over her nose and mouth, give her too much chloroform. i don't know that. but i know this child was killed. i know she lied about it, i know she put the child in the car trunk and put tape over her mouth and nose, and she died. >> nancy, look. powerful stuff from you. i would expect nothing else. when we come back after the break, i want to talk to you about casey anthony, now she's been released and what kind of life we can expect her to leading. >> the sweet life. she had it tattooed on her shoulder, piers.
9:36 pm
9:37 pm
the eagle flies at dawn. the monkey eats custard. price-line ne-go-ti-a-tor. so, you've been double crossed by other travel sites and now you want to try the real deal. yes, is it true that name your own price... even easier? affirmative. we'll show you other people's winning hotel bids. so i'll know how much to bid... ...and save up to 60% i'm in i know the lady in leather travels on three wheels. wait, is that code? that's my secret weapon... ...naomi pryce see winning hotel bids now at priceline.
9:38 pm
9:39 pm
my guest nancygracealready pretty fired up by this. and i know your passions run high. i can only imagine how you felt when you say casey anthony walk free. what did you feel when you saw those images? >> i felt a huge disappointment and there is one shot of her where she has this kind of an
9:40 pm
eerie grin, once she gets into the car. and it -- it really just gives you a chill. what i'd really like to know, piers, is who foot the bill for that private jet that picked her up at orlando executive airport, and we think deposited her somewhere in california? that's what i'd like to know. i think i've got a bead on it, that it was somehow connected to a lawyer once on her defense team that later fell off the defense team, apparently due to bar complaints, but the bill for the private plane went to the same address as his office, so i think i know where the private plane came from. whether she was really on the plane, i don't know. i doubt she's lingering in the florida area. i think she's going on to the next bigger, better deal out in california. >> but simply, should she be villified now? she's been through a court case. a jury of her peers has reached
9:41 pm
a verdict, and on that basis she has been acquitted of killing her child. if we respect the legal process, and the legal system, should she now be villified in public? or should she be allowed to lead the life she wants to lead? >> of course she can lead the life she wants to lead. that's what she wanted to do all along, that's why she killed her child, she got the tattoo, the sweet life. that's why she partied on a tripper pole in a mini skirt and a puni pushup bra while caylee was missing, rotting. do you think i could put my head down on a pillow, knowing 15 houses away my child was laying in a swampy muck? no. sure, live it up, casey anthony, go ahead. but the justice system doesn't exist in a vacuum. you're forgetting something called the bill of rights. i know you brits don't have that, but we do.
9:42 pm
and the very first one is freedom of speech. now why are you suggesting that the world can't comment on tot mom's not guilty verdict and her choice of life-style? maybe she'll turn into sister -- mother teresa and do good works for the rest of her life. you know, i'm not a betting person, but if i were, i would bet she's not going to turn into mother teresa. and i would bet she would make all the money she can and run right through in on a high life-style. >> the brits don't have the bill of rights, but nor do we have trial by television. >> trial by television. the jury certainly wasn't listening to me, they came up with a not guilty. >> the jurors begin to see themselves as bit part actors, they are beamed to the world every day. any time you see these trials,
9:43 pm
the results normally go the wrong way to public opinion. and create some of this kind of frenzy afterward. >> the results go the wrong way to public opinion? what does that mean? >> it means that public opinion had been driven i think by the saturation coverage on television and all of the commentary so most people were directed to believe, and, you know, i'm sure you wouldn't deny the fact that you were directing people to think this, that this woman killed her child. >> i have a lot more respect for my viewers than that. i think they can make up their own minds, and also, it's funny you would say that. because in our constitution, i guess you can compare it to the legislative history, the legislative minutes, when laws are enacted. someone is taking down everything that is said when laws are passed by congress. we have something similar to that when the constitution is written. and our forefathers, openly discussed, piers, how they
9:44 pm
wanted every courtroom in america to be big enough for the entire community to hear the trial. so there is no closed-door justice or secret proceedings. the people that watched this trial, including myself, made their decision, just because it doesn't agree with the jury's decision is a whole other can of worms. but america can listen and hear and evaluate the evidence, just as well as you and i can. so that was their decision. i'm sure you saw the "usa today" poll that 2/3 of americans believe they are guilty. that's their right to have an opinion and voice it. >> nancy, when we come back, i want to talk to you about your days as a prosecutor, and the tragedy that you already referred to that led you to becoming a lawyer in the first place. [ male announcer ] the network -- a network of possibilities. in here, the planned combination of at&t and t-mobile would deliver our next generation mobile broadband experience to 55 million more americans,
9:45 pm
many in small towns and rural communities, giving them a new choice. we'll deliver better service, with thousands of new cell sites... for greater access to all the things you want, whenever you want them. it's the at&t network... and what's possible in here is almost impossible to say. it's the at&t network... discover customersl are getting five percent cashback bonus at the pump... and at many of the places their summer plans take them. it pays to switch, it pays to discover.
9:46 pm
is best absorbed in small continuous amounts. only one calcium supplement does that in one daily dose. want to talk to you about your . continuously releases calcium plus d for the efficient absorption my body needs. citracal. oh, we call it the bundler. let's say you need home and auto insurance. you give us your information once, online... [ whirring and beeping ] [ ding! ] and we give you a discount on both. sort of like two in one. how did you guys think of that? it just came to us. what? bundling and saving made easy. now, that's progressive. call or click today.
9:47 pm
9:48 pm
we have had people working overtime, triple time. weekends, unpaid. nothing in it for any of us. except we believe he killed her. >> that was from your days as a prosecutor, nancy. got to say, love the hair there. >> thank you. jealous? >> tell me about the -- i also love the fact that even then you
9:49 pm
could tell that you had this fire brand attitude. looking you there, smashing your stick on the table. you were an aggressive prosecutor, very direct with your eye contact with the juror there. clearly something that was a passion for you. i'm assuming that the passion for you was driven, not least by the fact that you yourself have been through this appalling tragedy with your fiance being killed by a coworker. >> yes. there is keith. he got that black eye from a baseball. keith was in school on baseball scholarship to get his degree in geology and was almost through. and was working a summer job at a construction site, and he left at lunchtime to go get soft
9:50 pm
drinks for everyone and when he -- when he pulled back into the site, a co-worker that had been fired was angry and had showed up with the site with a gun and the theory was that he was waiting for the boss that fired him but when he saw the truck he just opened fire and he shot keith five times in the fa face, the neck and the head. keith was still alive when he made it to the hospital. but he did not live. >> i can see even now, nancy,
9:51 pm
this is clearly a hugely traumatic part of your life. it makes you very emotional. i'm not surprised to talk about it now and seeing these pictures of you and keith together must bring back all sorts of memories for you. what happened to him, spur you on to do? when you remember your feelings at the time, did it drive you on to finding justice for others? was it as simple as that? >> you know, piers, it's so complicated. i so rarely discuss it, other than alluding to it briefly if i'm asked questions about it. you know, piers, people talk about closure. and they throw that around as far as cindy and george anthony. they have closure because it's all over. there is no closure. it's like breaking your arm. and you never get it set. but you learn to flip a pancake or sweep the floor, not the way
9:52 pm
you did before, but in a different way. yes, it affect made life. i went nearly 30 years without being able to really seriously entertain marriage or a family. in fact, the word "marriage" would actually give me -- i would physically have a shake when it was brought up. and i remember it was like a dark swirl after his murder. i couldn't eat. i couldn't drink anything. i lost down to about 89 pounds. i dropped out of school. i was at my parents' home. i couldn't stand to hear the tv, the radio, in the car. i couldn't stand to hear a clock
9:53 pm
tick. it was just too much. and i ultimately -- i went to go stay with my sister in philadelphia. she was a professor at the wharton school of business at the time and i would just sit on a park bench and watch students gobbi while she was teaching. and it dawned on me there that i had no idea what law school even was. but that i would go to law school. and that somehow i could make a difference. i had planned to be a english shakespearean professor, hopefully at a graduate level. and i couldn't imagine being in a classroom the rest of my life and that had been my dream and i'm sorry to say that since that time i've never had the heart to open up a single shakespearean play or sonnet. i just can't. that was the different life and a different dream and a
9:54 pm
different girl. that girl is gone. but what i have now a life that's been dedicated to seeking justice and very late in life, god heard my prayers and answered them 10,000 times over by giving me twins and a husband that loves me and accepts me like i am. so it was not what i planned but god gave me something very different. >> nancy, we'll take another short break. when we come back i'll talk to you about your new marriage and the children that you have. the wau way you were able to rebuild your life and propel your career into becoming one of the most high-profile defenders of justice that this country has. >> thank you, piers. obster, a complete four-course seafood feast for $15. start with soup, then have salad and biscuits followed by 1 of 7 delicious entrees
9:55 pm
and finish with something sweet. all for just $15. ending soon, at red lobster. aflac! oh, i've just got major medical... major medical. ...but it helps pay the doctors. pays the doctors, boyyy! [ quack ] oh yeah? what about your family? ♪ we added aflac, so we get cash! it's like our safety net... ♪ to help with the mortgage or whatever we need! so my family doesn't feel the pain too. ha! [ male announcer ] help protect your family at [ pigeons ] heyyy! hooo!!!
9:56 pm
[ kimberly ] the university gave me the knowledge to make a difference in people's lives. [ carrie ] you're studying how to be an effective leader. [ cherie ] you're dealing with professionals, teaching things that they were doing every day. [ kimberly ] i manage a network of over a thousand nurses. [ carrie ] i helped turn an at-risk school into an award-winning school. [ cherie ] i'm responsible for the largest urban renewal project in utah. [ kimberly ] and university of phoenix made it possible. learn more at
9:57 pm
9:58 pm
back with my guest, nancy grace. nancy, before we went to the break, very emotional hear you can talk about your fiance' that was killed and talking about the fact that you rebuilt your life, got married and had children the way you thought, at one stage, never thought you could do. you've had all this attention and you've had all this success and you are so high profile and you get criticized and praised in equal measure. when you get criticized what do you think is the biggest misconception about you? >> oh with piers, you've been through this, i'm sure. all the criticism and all of the praise, it doesn't -- it's not worth the salt that goes on my bread because tv is fickle. you can be loved one day and
9:59 pm
hated the next day. one day you're getting an award and the next day you're getting a death threat. so what does it all mean? it doesn't mean anything. what matters to me is that i try to do the right thing on air and off air and what my children think of me and what they'll read about me on the internet. what my husband and my parents and my family. what keith thinking about me, how i lived my life since he was murdered. i know he's watching and cheering me on. that's what matters to me. >> well, nancy, you've been incredibly honest in this interview, more than i thought you'd be about that part of your life and personally, i love watching your show. i think you're a force for good and i think you are ballsy and aggressive but your heart, you want to bring justice to people like caylee anthony and long may you continue. thank you for joining me. >> thank

Piers Morgan Tonight
CNN July 18, 2011 9:00pm-10:00pm EDT

News/Business. (2011) New.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Keith 7, Murdoch 6, Casey Anthony 6, Rupert Murdoch 6, Britain 5, Piers 4, At&t 3, Bskyb 3, Florida 2, John Coffey 2, California 2, Teresa 2, Rupert 2, Aflac 2, Kimberly 2, Carrie 2, New York 2, Coffey 2, Cherie 2, Vicky 2
Network CNN
Duration 01:00:00
Scanned in Annapolis, MD, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Port 1234
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec mp2
Pixel width 720
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 8/3/2011